What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Tony EH · 01-04-2023 6:04pm

The burden of proof is never upon the accused in a court. But at the end of a case if the accused is found innocent, they will still have proven their innocence. All of this is just another Trumpcult storm in a teacup over absolutely nothing. Funny how they're so concerned over phraseology and terminology all of a sudden.

y0ssar1an22 · 01-04-2023 6:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428206#Comment_120428206

so essentially used campaign funds (donations) to finance the payoff.

just a very basic google search gives me this:

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/

Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.

Commission regulations provide a test, called the "irrespective test," to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the "irrespective test," personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

from my reading of the above, if the payoff would have happened regardless of trump running, it is illegal. if no payoff necessary unless he ran, then its grand.

i presume bragg will argue that the conditions for the payoff existed before trump ran, so should be deemed illegal. this will be further complicated due to bragg using federal law to prosecute at a state level when that is the purview of the feds. presume if they win, it'll end up in the supreme court.

'twill be interesting to see how it plays out

Igotadose · 01-04-2023 6:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428498#Comment_120428498

Indictments will be out on Tuesday. I'd wait a day or two for the legal eagles out there to pore over them and get some perspective. This stuff's headache-generating to follow.

I think a better take might be, "Used campaign funds to pay off Cohen, then lied about it." It's the coverup that always gets 'em, cf. Nixon, Richard M.

Cody montana · 01-04-2023 6:15pm

Taking down Fox News and trump in a few months would be sweet.

Igotadose · 01-04-2023 6:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426668#Comment_120426668

Just read up a bit on this, thanks. Seems like one of the actors in the scheme was "one-time Texas Governor John Connally." Now, if I were a CT type, I'd point out that's the same guy who was in the car with JFK when JFK was shot. Connally was shot, too... The guy is certainly there for big sneaky political events...

https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/october-surprise-ben-barnes/

y0ssar1an22 · 01-04-2023 6:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428478#Comment_120428478

this is something that is cropping up more and more these days, see man utd thread re mason greenwood.

if someone is innocent until found guilty, simply being found not guilty equals innocence. else, you aint innocent until proven guilty.

re pelosi, she's clever. i would say deliberately phrased that way to rile up trump supporters

y0ssar1an22 · 01-04-2023 6:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428518#Comment_120428518

i reckon you're right. shut down opposing viewpoints. groupthink is prob the best way forward.

banie01 · 01-04-2023 6:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428400#Comment_120428400

I agree that she was being quite restrained in what she said. Particularly given the harm he has caused her family. No argument on that front from me.

The issue, and it wasn't one I believe she intended is how her choice of words can be construed and indeed is being in many circles. Her formula places the burden of evidence on the accused. That's not how criminal law works, we agree on that 😉

Her phrasing is being flagged by multiple commentators as troublesome. The formula of words used in her tweet raises flags for legal practitioners.

Yes, she's not a lawyer and thankfully her turn of phrase will have no more effect on the court than as just that. A turn of phrase.

It is fuel to the fire for Trumper's tho, and even just looking at who thanked my prior post on it, makes that fairly clear.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428478#Comment_120428478

Bang on, apart from how I'd interpret the not guilty verdict and most practitioner's I know would too.

Their innocence doesn't need to be proven, They are in all purposes innocent before the court from the get-go. Rather than proving anyone's innocence, it's vindicated or reconfirmed by the court.

I know it seems pedantic and semantic, but the reason I'd lean that way is that an accused need offer no evidence, not even testimony in their defence and still be found "not guilty".

They need not present anything at all to disprove a case against them. An accused need take no affirmative action whatsoever in their defence and thus need offer no proof for anything to be found as proven.

I know it seems like splitting hairs, but these are precisely the types of "nothings' that the Trumper's turn to being in their favour.

I don't really have anything more to add to the good news of a Trump indictment other than that.

Nancy's turn of phrase won't make a blind bit of difference in court. That's the important thing, it won't stop our Trumper friends latching on to it for a bit of CT bolloxology tho.

ohnonotgmail · 01-04-2023 6:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120426668#Comment_120426668

The admission might be new but I always thought it was common knowledge that a deal was done.

ohnonotgmail · 01-04-2023 6:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428565#Comment_120428565

Nothing Pelosi says has any bearing on the charges against trump or the outcome of any trial.

banie01 · 01-04-2023 6:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428598#Comment_120428598

I literally said that in my post, twice.

But thanks for the confirmation 😉👍

astrofool · 01-04-2023 6:43pm

Look, a squirrel/Pelosi!

Tony EH · 01-04-2023 6:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428565#Comment_120428565

Neither Pelosi nor anyone else is saying that the accused "needs" to prove their innocence. However, the fact still remains that once a trial has ended and the plaintiff has failed to make the charges stick, as it were, then the accused has proven their innocence in the case, which is all that Pelosi has said. They will have been "vindicated", as you say, which literally means "proof that someone or something is right", according to the OED.

As for evidence being offered, all parties being evidence to a trial. It would be foolish in the extreme for one's council to bring zero evidence to defend their client in the hope that they could merely count on breaking the court's case that's levelled against them without it. You can bet your bottom dollar that Trump's lawyers have been furiously building a defence in order to "prove" their client's innocence.

There's nothing wrong with what Pelosi has said or in the way that she phrased things. What is wrong, however, is that certain quarters want to make people think she means something that she didn't actually say.

banie01 · 01-04-2023 6:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428621#Comment_120428621

Am I certain quarters?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out Pelosi's 2nd sentence as troublesome, it is. It implies that Trump must carry the burden to prove his innocence.

That's clearly not at all what she meant but, it's very much how it's phrased. That's already been highlighted by other commentators and tbh? We all know that's not what she meant. But much like Alice and the raven, some folk take it literally and place weight on what she said, rather than what she meant.

Tony EH · 01-04-2023 7:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428640#Comment_120428640

No, you're not the certain quarters. But you know who are. It's the same type that will try and twist anything to pull the wool over others eyes in an effort to deflect from more pressing matters.

As for troublesome, I see nothing whatsoever that's troublesome in what Pelosi said. But, as I've mentioned, what's actually troublesome is the fact that certain quarters (not you) that have already proven their bad faith time and time again have tried to engage in twisting someone's words in order to protect their cult leader.

In any case, this will all be forgotten by tomorrow and what Pelosi said won't mean a tinkers cuss to anyone.

Cody montana · 01-04-2023 7:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428561#Comment_120428561

Shutting down lies and misinformation.

How awful.

banie01 · 01-04-2023 7:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428686#Comment_120428686

No, you're not the certain quarters.

Thanks for that at least Tony😉

Look, to rational people? Pelosi's tweet doesn't matter a fúck. The problem is the irrational folk, the Trumper's who hold the constitution dear.

It's not just the appointed judges that take literalist/teleological views of anything said contrary to their Orange messiah.

These folk put the same effort into spinning out Pelosi's tweet as Alito did when he cited Matthew Hale in the judgement that struck down Roe V Wade.

I know my point on what Pelosi is pedantic, in a sane world everyone would grasp her point.

The thing is that we are dealing with folk who are comfortable twisting a narrative to suit their vision of the world and their persecution.

The phrasing Nancy used was a gift on that front. They only need to recite the 2nd sentence and ignore the context to have Trump be the victim. Sane and rational folk know what was meant, my boring near treatise on different burden is more to highlight why and how that thread will be pulled, than it is a criticism of Pelosi or god forbid support for the local hotel owner in legal jeopardy in NY 🤷‍♀️

Tony EH · 01-04-2023 7:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428714#Comment_120428714

Trumper's hold the constitution dear? What?

Look, I couldn't a fuck what Trump cultists think or say. I'll put it bluntly. They have long, LONG, since shown that they care for nothing except getting one up on the "other side", whatever that happens to mean on a given day. So they're input is meaningless.

It's especially meaningless in this matter, because it's (as I said earlier) a storm in a teacup that will be dissipated as soon as the next news cycle comes along.

banie01 · 01-04-2023 7:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428828#Comment_120428828

I should perhaps have put that in /s 😉

They don't we know they don't, they know they don't but? They love to drap themselves in it and point re: Pelosi is that she gifted them a "literal" sentence, that only needs context ignored. Rather than their usual twisting.

Overheal · 01-04-2023 7:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428100#Comment_120428100

You're pouring more gas on it than anyone else you are alluding to in the thread.

Water John · 01-04-2023 8:02pm

Discussing Pelosi here is classic whataboutery. Don't think she was present when Trump was running around in the nip.

archermoo · 01-04-2023 8:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120428640#Comment_120428640

No, that is in fact not how it is phrased. She didn't say "you will have to prove your innocence at trial". She literally posted "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." Nothing in there even implies that the burden of proof is on him. Just that he has the right to be heard in court so that he can show everyone that he is innocent. I get that the turn of phrase isn't one that you're used to. I get tripped up all the time by phrases that are common in Ireland that I didn't grow up with. But the one she used is a very common concept in the US. And despite their claims otherwise all the MAGA talking heads are well aware of what it means. But they hate Pelosi with a passion, and so do everything they can to twist anything she says.

Water John · 01-04-2023 8:39pm

A bit of background on the judge Trump will meet on Tuesday.

https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2023/0401/1367674-donald-trump-judge-juan-merchan/

charlie_says · 01-04-2023 10:35pm

Democrats get what they want, Trump vs their candidate in the general.

It's a gamble.

everlast75 · 02-04-2023 9:05am

https://twitter.com/_NotAbouThaBase/status/1642201963042418688?s=20

It's an awful shame....

Snake Plisken · 02-04-2023 9:27am

New York is a basket case! And democrat running the show are abusing the justice system Imagine jailing a guy for sending a meme!

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1641907970547097603?s=19

sydthebeat · 02-04-2023 9:34am

I think you dropped your "whataboutery" there snake....

ohnonotgmail · 02-04-2023 11:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120430312#Comment_120430312

What does that have to do with new York? It was a federal crime. Trump was indicted by the manhattan DA who is not a federal prosecutor. Another spectacular own goal Snake. Probably best to read what you repost BEFORE you repost it.